Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based telescope observations, we have known that the Universe is expanding, and that there must have been a "Big Bang" where the expansion all started. But the question that has challenged astronomers, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers for centuries is this: will the Universe expand forever or will it someday stop, turn around, and collapse in a "Big Crunch"? NASA missions are helping to gather the evidence required to answer this question conclusively.

Through the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), we have been able to take a "baby picture" of the Universe - a picture taken a short 379,000 years after it was born in the Big Bang. WMAP surveyed the entire sky, measuring temperature differences of the microwave radiation that is evenly disbursed across the Universe. The picture above shows a map of the sky, with hot regions in red and cooler regions in blue. By combining this evidence with theoretical models of the Universe, scientist have been able to conclude that the Universe is "flat," meaning that, on cosmological scales, the geometry of space satisfies the same rules of Euclidean geometry that everyone learned in high school (e.g., parallel lines never meet, the ration of a circle's circumference to its diameter is pi, etc).

Observations with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) get at another aspect of the Universe's expansion. Besides giving us a precise measure of the expansion rate, recent observations of very distant supernovae show not only that the universe will never stop expanding, but that itis actually accelerating-expanding faster and faster as time goes on, producing what has been called a "Big Rip." Since all matter should slow down the expansion and not accelerate it, this result was totally unexpected and indicted that most of the density of the Universe must be in the form on "dark energy," a weird form of energy whose gravity is the opposite of that for normal matter and energy.

The combination of WMAP and HST observations tell us that the Universe must be made up of 70% dark energy and 25% dark matter (a form of matter unknown to science), and that only 5% is the normal matter we are familiar with-the matter that makes up stars and planets and everything else we see.

Should this accelerating Universe picture prove true, then we may expect that in only 100 billion years, our Milky Way Galaxy will find itself alone in an empty Universe. The accelerating expansion, which has already been going on for 6 billion years, will propel all of our galactic neighbors beyond the horizon of the then-visible Universe. We will be left utterly alone for the rest of eternity.

scbrow01/06/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

I think a better explanation for the accelerating expansion of our universe is just plain old gravity. We don't need to invent a new force of nature or surmise the existence of matter we cannot measure to explain the acceleration.

It is perfectly plausible that there are other universes out there - each of which came to be with its own big bang.

In fact, they could be all around us - with their gravity pulling the matter of our universe closer and closer to each of them as time passes.

JohnEDPMalin01/07/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

Thank you for your lucid insight. It is haunting to think that dark energy 'manufactures' space.

JohnEDPMalin01/07/09

replied to: scbrow

Replied To: I think a better explanation for the accelerating expansion of our ...

There are further details you are missing in your Astronomy 101 class. Newtonian gravity does not predict what observation attests, hence appealment to Dark Energy.

Alexander04/10/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

Wow i knew some of that which was explained in the body of the message but you added to that knowledge thanks for the new conversation starter.

Alexander04/10/09

replied to: scbrow

Replied To: I think a better explanation for the accelerating expansion of our ...

That is another intresting subject that could be argued till we all died of old age but it's still something to think about when your bored. or just maybe you just have the time to think about something as cool as this.

ravigopal05/23/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

Hai,
my name is gopal studing tenth class in narsapur.
i have doudth above space.
that is;-
energy can travel in space or not?

subhendu979106/20/09

replied to: ravigopal

Replied To: Hai,
my name is gopal studing tenth class in narsapur.
i have dou...

Energy in the form of waves live gamma rays,x-rays can travel in space. They travel in small tiny packets of energy called quanta (you need to know about quantum theory).

Streona08/05/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

I am not sure about the "Big Rip" ? Would this casue a tear in the fabric of the Universe so that the matter etc. in the Universe would be dragged back into an enormous black hole to collide in the manner of a Big Crunch ?

Ritwik08/14/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

Hey, i just dont believe this "BIG BANG" theory. its weird to think that we all that exists was born from a BANG. "Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed."
Similarly, the universe always existed. Also, we can never prove that the universe is constantly increasig.
What do u say?

ChrishTiyan09/16/09

replied to: JohnEDPMalin

Replied To: There are further details you are missing in your Astronomy 101 cla...

Songs that will inspire you and lift your spirit up for God. Listen to Kim Clements songs of praise. He is a modern prophet.

Karthik09/20/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

I think whatever is said is true. Universe is expanding. It all started from a single point with high density. After sometime that point got exploded which resulted in expansion of the Universe.

paradigm10/08/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

The Universe is not expandig, and did not begin with a big bang.

The big bang theory is based on interpreting the cosmic red shift phenomena as indicative of a Doppler Effect and the galaxies accelerating away.

However, the light from our Sun is also red shifted and the sun is not accelerating away.

Physics tries to get around this obvious point by claiming that the red shift in the light from our Sun is "gravitational".

Which it is.

The red shift in the light from galaxies is also gravitational.

Red shift is indicative of the way in which light travels through being constructed into wavelength of increasing width and decreasing density.

To claim that the red shift in the light from galaxies is not gravitational is to claim that they do not gravitational fields. Which is plan silly.

Gravitational fields are equivalent to emission fields.

Everything has an emission field.

The cause of gravity is the obsorption and exchange of emission by objects.

The Earth absorbs the emission (field) of the Sun via its emission field.

If you want to know more about the paradigm (theory) that integrates science, then it's presented in the essay, "The Logic of the Universe", located at: http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/forever.pdf

paradigm

sidhudavinci10/23/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

I think the universe would dissolve and disappear into the darkness.All the matters are moving away from each other and it needs more and more gravitation to pull them back. I cant think the full of this, can any one give an idea what happens next.

paradigm10/23/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

The big bang theory is based on interpreting the red shift phenomena as a Doppler Effect. However, this interpretation is wrong.

The light from our Sun is known to be red shifted, and the Sun is not accelerating away.

The red shift in the light from the Sun is called a gravitational red shift.

The light from galaxies is also a gravitational red shift and not a Doppler Effect.

The gravitational field of the Sun and the Galaxies is actually an emission field.

The emission (radiation) of the Sun is the basis of its emission field.

The Earth also has an emission(gravitional)field.

The cause of gravity is the absrotpion and exchange of emisssion via the emission fields of objects.

Everything from the smallest possible particle to the largest galaxy has an emission (gravitational) field.

Electrostatic attraction is also gravitational attraction.

The idea that gravity only operates at the macroscale is wrong.

All of this is presented in the essay 'An Infinite Moment in Time".

This is located at: http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/forever.pdf

EarthPerson911/23/09

replied to: ravigopal

Replied To: Hai,
my name is gopal studing tenth class in narsapur.
i have dou...

Yes, Gopal, energy can travel in space because space, time, energy, and mass (matter) are interconnected based on the graviational theory of Albert Einstein. There are several forces in Nature and much work based on Einstein's theories. It is complex and as you learn more mathematics and physics it will become apparent.

Magoonski11/24/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

What if dark matter and energy is actually stuff from outside our universe? Kind of like when making a dumpling...think of our universe as the dough and the stuff 'outside' our universe as boiling water. The affect of the boiling liquid on the dumpling makes it expand, just like the affect of the stuff outside of our universe MAY make it expand. The dark matter and energy would be, metaphorically speaking, similar to the heat and water getting into the dumpling.
Of course if you leave a dumpling to boil too long it will eventually breakdown and disband evenly in the pot making a big mess but for all we know, once our universe becomes "overcooked" and breaks apart there will be more life, lights, etc...maybe (assuming our atoms will remain stable) we'll just become part of an even larger and more crowded place.

As for how the "stuff" leaks in...maybe it comes through black holes. I know that black holes can suck in light but do they have an affect dark matter and dark energy?

EarthPerson911/24/09

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

That is very intersting.
Can you please let us know the reference citations for several of the published articles so we may also read them?

sarge12/18/09

replied to: Ritwik

Replied To: Hey, i just dont believe this "BIG BANG" theory. its weird to think...

To paradigm: newtonian theory for gravity coincides with your openion of emission theories. but we prefer general relativity now cause it explained the ununderstood things in newtonian theory as , for example: the equality of gravitational mass and inertial mass. so for gravity the best theory that solved most of the mystries about it is general relativity that concideres gravity as no longer a force, but a manifestation of spacetime curvature.

To paradigm: newtonian theory for gravity coincides with your openion of emission theories. but we prefer general relativity now cause it explained the ununderstood things in newtonian theory as , for example: the equality of gravitational mass and inertial mass. so for gravity the best theory that solved most of the mystries about it is general relativity that concideres gravity as no longer a force, but a manifestation of spacetime curvature.

dgg196501/04/10

replied to: paradigm

Replied To: The Universe is not expandig, and did not begin with a big bang.
...

Im definitely with you on the universe is not expanding! While I am no astrphysisist, I do have overall familiarity with science and propaganda. A much more feasible explanation for the fate of the universe is: galaxies will become bigger and less numerous as time goes on. Black holes exist at the heart of many big galaxies and have big appet

dgg196501/04/10

replied to: paradigm

Replied To: The Universe is not expandig, and did not begin with a big bang.
...

Sorry about the accidental save... Anyway what i was trying to get at is a galaxy is no more than the accretion disk for a massive black hole. It just so happens that this disk happens to be so big that star system formation can occur within the disk. Also as the central black hole gains mass, the disk gains size as the gravitational influence of the hole extends... As the matter of space gets inexorably drawn toward its ultimate fate, it becomes material for solar system formation. What happens when the matter runs out though? Do the existing black holes finish off their accretion disks, and roam space to encounter other black holes, combine, and so on and so on until there is the king of the black holes. Or if there is no limit to space matter, is there no limit to black hole size?

Arther8401/04/10

replied to: dgg1965

Replied To: Sorry about the accidental save... Anyway what i was trying to get ...

The gravitational redshift gets smaller as distance between the emitter and reciever gets bigger. so we can measure it for the sun but it's impossible to do that for galaxies. and by the way the redshift that is being measured is not due to doppler effect(as commonly mistaken) but due to the dilation of EM wave lengths due to the dilation of space itself because of the expanding of the universe . and the experimental evidence on big bang theory comes from CMB radiation (the results coincides amazingly with calculations) and from the ratioes of the elements in space. and all the problems that big bang had encountered was resolved by its improved sister( inflation theory).

Jmundi01/08/10

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

Dear Desmonde,

I am an Electrical Engineer who is amazed for a decade about the discovery of the Dark Energy. All skeptic scientist seems to give in to the new theory.
I did some research related to the acceptance of the Dark Energy theory and I come to the conclusion: perhaps the scientists overlooked a possibility about the calculations related to the long-long travel of the light ie. billions of years. During this time the light density or the mass of the photon may changed somewhat, therefore the whole Dark Energy theory may not be as we think of today. (The quantum theory does not rules out of less density of quantum energy)
Furthermore from the general relativity the photon travels with a constant energy or with an original set of quantum energy which is the speed of light in a certain gravity zones throughout the Universe but the photon that started to leave from a Supernovae is the same photon as we detect today? Over billions of years some fragment of the photon may got lost (energy loss=dimmer light or less number of photons?) and if this is the case than the whole Dark Energy theory may falls a part.
An other scenario: May the general relativity theory needs to be revised on the macro time scale?

Perhaps we should investigate these possibilities. I may be wrong, but what if I am right?

Yours truly,

John L. Mundi
jmundi2000@yahoo.com

lehmann52004/02/10

replied to: paradigm

Replied To: The big bang theory is based on interpreting the red shift phenomen...

Paradigm,

I am also aware of the steady state theories of Hoyle. I have become very interested in LaViolette recently.

What if a black hole is NOT just a destructive force, what if it is a creative force as well? What if a singularity is actually a type of information CONVERSION engine powered by gravity?
Old info, already written, goes in, gets crunched around in the gravity well where the laws of physics break down and during the process, the old information is utterly destroyed and rewritten, then, triggered by some natural event, when the singularity has eaten enough stuff to sooth its gravity engine, it collapses slightly or expands slightly (like a volcano, sort of)and the black hole ejects the information back out into the void. It is now ready to be gathered by gravity into new stars, planets etc.

most of the time these 'information explosions' are mild burps resulting in waves of cosmic dust and gas such as we see in our galaxy and waves of electrons and gravity that move much faster through the galactic structure.Protons which are heavier and slower get caught in the mag fields between us and the core which is good because I think, when they reach us in great quantity, all hell breaks out on this planet and in this solar system.

LaViolette talks of 'combed out pathways' in the galactic structure that allow for this. I can find no evidence for this in recognized galactic structure but the geological, sedimentary, ice core record of cosmic dust bombardment is real and polarity shifts and drifts may account for mag field reversals or slips as a result of EM bombardment. gravity waves may account for the change in tectonic structure and activity that we think is caused by gamma heating

I am struck by the Hubble images of singularities. They do not reveal a black hole and accretion disk, they reveal startling luminosity. Even the images of the center of this galaxy reveal luminosity not a black hole. They say this is because the singularity is very small but surely we would see SOMETHING odd. All we see is a well of light and dust.

if this model of the galaxy is correct and the singularity at its core is a gravity conversion engine....if we then apply that model to the shape and form and function of the universe structure....
then, the evidence of a big bang beginning to the universe could be interpreted as a universe core explosion event in which massive amounts of new information was spewed out of the core into the universal accretion disk where the force of gravity then begins to gather it back together forming galaxies and such.
the red shifted, older galaxies are 'ahead' of us on the spiral arm of the universe's structure (we cannot see the structure because of dust/gas occlusion and lack of perspective, it would be vast!) are traveling toward the conversion engine core faster and faster.
the red shift in light from our own sun could be proof that our galaxy is moving in the same fashion, at the same or slightly lower speeds than the ones ahead of us. Blue shift galaxies could be behind us on the arm, moving towards us at a slightly slower speed than we are moving forward. Yellow disks maybe new accretions or maybe galaxies that have recently had a core explosion event and are reorganizing their structures at this time. A galactic core explosion may alter the speed of the galaxy along the spiral arm of the universe structure causing a temporary shift out of red/blue spectrum.

the really interesting thing about this new way to look at black holes and gravity's purpose and nature is the fact that the red shift galaxies may be approaching the speed of light yet their structures seem intact, not stretched out or blurred as relativity would suggest.

what if gravity is the controlling factor, not the speed of light? what if gravity does not affect the speed of light because the mass of light particles is not high enough to increase its speed. It can BEND light but not increase the rate it travels which is why singularities appear luminous. Light is to "light" to be completely sucked in and reconfigured. Some particles do get sucked in and converted, by some escape.

if this is true then the speed of light is not the speed limit and doesn't translate into relativity.
the speed limit is gravity controlled which implies, the heavier something is, the faster it can go.

weird huh
Dawn

ramarao04/10/10

replied to: ravigopal

Replied To: Hai,
my name is gopal studing tenth class in narsapur.
i have dou...

Yes my friend, all the waves are form of energy then the light also a wave form (study in 12 grade)which can travel through space.if light is not energitic wave how the plants use energy of light to do photosynthesis .think of it ,bye

from shiva(IIIT)

blixems9904/18/10

replied to: ramarao

Replied To: Yes my friend, all the waves are form of energy then the light also...

If i can be so bold as to ask.. Can we consider the 'earth' for a moment as a grain of sand ( i know this has been done) and the universe as a desert..sahara, namib, Kalahari, or a place like Egypt or Arabia..

So earth is a tiny piece of this fastness around it.. right... a vastness that NEVER ENDS!!!!!

One can count the grains of sand (gona take a while) but there is a limit to it.. here is my question..

1. The sands of the world has a limit.. Does SPACE?
2. it you think it does.. what do we find at the end of space???

cherish0904/21/10

replied to: blixems99

Replied To: If i can be so bold as to ask.. Can we consider the 'earth' for a m...

Blixems99

I can relate and I honestly don't know. When people live their daily lives, they don't usually see that they are living on a planet in a VAST blackness that seems to have no end. They look at things much smaller. I just find it amazing that they can do that! I'm only 15 and there isn't a day goes by that I'm not contemplating the reason we are here, how big Space is, if there's really a god, ect. I got off topic, but anywho, when I think of the "end" of Space, the only thing I can picture is a VAST purple divider of stars and on the other side there is another Space...just like tis one, but different.

lehmann52004/21/10

replied to: blixems99

Replied To: If i can be so bold as to ask.. Can we consider the 'earth' for a m...

The next big thing?

Dawn

Astro105/03/10

replied to: blixems99

Replied To: If i can be so bold as to ask.. Can we consider the 'earth' for a m...

We find the Final Frontier

boo805/09/10

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

I believe the fate of the Universe is controlled by its creator. The one true God.

aqruipnos05/10/10

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

After expansion due to solar heating, contractions will follow as the energies will be used up.but first comets must hit most of the planets and stars!

davidx24705/12/10

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

Its all gravity!

MikeMorin05/18/10

replied to: vice64

[POST DELETED]

Back to Earth!

I should have given up on rational approaches to the world long ago.

As Ecology means the study of the home and Economics means the management of the home, I thought it my noble Cynical calling to give it all to enunciating and communicating an economic alternative that was based on the best that I could do with respect for rational thought and the wisdom, if not cruelty, of the workings of natural systems.

They, as homo sapiens, are locked into a profit-maximizing, yield maximizing, immature ecological systems approach. It is the essence of the now almost past fossil fuel age with cheap inputs into human "communities" (I quote because the atomization process has become unbearable and impossible to penetrate) and the entropic nature of existence is claiming
final victory over the order of life.

Of course, I am ignored. I am a lone monk, a lone voice in the wilderness after my mentors and friends, the few that understood at all an Environmental Studies/Radical Economics/Planning/MBA have died or given up, yielding to the unrelenting empiricism that Man, being the ultimate
manifestation of competitive natural forces, and blasted beyond any possible reintegration unto the planet, with the accelerating entropic technologies associated with the horribly squandering oil/automobile age.

About 15 years ago, I came to the "conclusion" that "good and intelligent people sit in quiet resignation, delusionals maintain hope". Given that my
physical needs are fairly easily met, my monkish existence fueled by a youthful idealism that I just can't completely shake, keeps me trying.

I too, am completely Cynical about the hopes for Homa Ecologica Cooperativo, and the rational evolution to a true human civilization, but, hey, I thought I'd go all the way with it. You know, contrast it with Homo Irrationalo
Genocido Ecocido Suicido!

Anyway, the linear trajectory of the non-ecological economic entropy will manifest itself by the logical conclusion of its creed, "to each his own" to "to each his own nothing". Kunstler believes that everyone is going broke. How he can even imagine to have a handle on everyone, is beyond me, but despite the cheerleading gibberish of Obama and the oligarchic Plutocratic
media, my understanding of the economy makes it clear that it would have to be unraveling for almost everyone. There are no real opportunities left for enterprise, save the charlatan deal makers, whose days are numbered also.
Only that the masses are given no clues, led like sheep, euphoriated on hedonism, and given no collective voice for communicating and/or demanding a call for something completely different, keeps the deafening enginocentric
dynamo humming louder and louder and louder to its ultimate calling of lifelessness.

Fausten05/21/10

replied to: MikeMorin

Replied To: Back to Earth!
I should have given up on rational approaches to ...

Until now, silence seems to have been the best reply to the previous post. If I break it, it is only to reinforce it. Our BIG questions are determined and motivated by language and the thinking habits it implies. There is no beginning, there is no end. Mind, with the help of language, is what creates the universe. The mind projects its meanings onto it, and if it sometimes seems to fit, it only shows how well being and meaning can dance together. But it would be delusory to think that language, much less mind, could fit or grasp the whole (which does not exist other than as one of our mental-linguisitc categories). Even the idea of God is a thought that we may well start thinking, since we anthropomorphize just about everything, but we will never be able to think it all the way through. And so the thought is left unfinished, but asserted and defended with the vehemence born of a corresponding despair. "Dark" energy or matter? Our ignorance given weight. All that we need for our lives was there before the first hominid ever uttered the first cry or raised the first metaphysical question. Surely we are not going to abuse our minds to the point of making language provide answers that we cannot understand. Hence silence.

philgood05/24/10

replied to: Fausten

Replied To: Until now, silence seems to have been the best reply to the previou...

Both the cold dark matter model and my own (see Physics Essays, 2010; 23: 368, rely on the existance of a scalar field. According to my less-complicated model, our universe will expand forever.
But both models posit the existance of a very high energy scalar field. A possible explanation for such a field is that it represents a 4-dimensional cross-section through the path of an oscillator which lies primarily in external to our universe dimensions. As a consequence of quantum tunneling, some of this energy may be redirected into our universe in rapid oscillations confined to a quantum volume.

Runtime06/03/10

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

Another interesting point.... Are our microscopes really that goog to know for a fac that an electron doesn't contain it's own universe with different elements and life that askshe same questions as we do.

lehmann52006/26/10

replied to: Fausten

Replied To: Until now, silence seems to have been the best reply to the previou...

your language provides answers you can't understand because you talk nonsense.
You are so certain of your intelligence you forget to question your common sense and logic. Good luck in that dark world where you dream of nothing because you imagine it so clearly.

We believe that you're all wrong!!!!!
CHISELS will prevail! CHISELS will rule! CHISELS I TELL YOUUU CHISELSSSS

florian07/06/10

replied to: Fausten

Replied To: Until now, silence seems to have been the best reply to the previou...

Lol, you must be a Buddhist. "I think therefore I am", but a bit off topic don't you think? You are right that it is just the thought process(chemicals in our brain) that creates the question, and the answer is just speculation(even with "proof") but to ask the question makes us human! As for the original question, the universe just increases in chaos. No beginning or end(not in a human life anyway). One of the theories I love is the cell universe theory. just as atoms make up matter as we know it, each solar system is an "atom" making matter on a huge scale. Everything can be broken down even smaller and everything makes something bigger. No beginning or end. Size is irrelevant(sorry ladies=)

littlebang08/07/10

replied to: florian

Replied To: Lol, you must be a Buddhist. "I think therefore I am", but a bit of...

Hi , I just joined and this seems to be the topic closest to my question .Is the Universe expanding? .
We have been looking at images in the night sky for thousands of years , the big dipper etc , star signs .
So if the universe is expanding ,shouldn't these images have changed shape by now , the nearest stars in the image would have moved sideways more than the distant ones , thus distorting the image . Has there been any studies done on this . Surely if the star sign images are exactly the same as they were two thousand years ago.We could conclude the universe is not expanding???

TyphoonSeason08/13/10

replied to: scbrow

Replied To: I think a better explanation for the accelerating expansion of our ...

In a vacuum, there can be no gravity as we know it on earth, otherwise the Moon would fall from the sky upon our Earth, the planets would all fall into the sun from its more powerful gravity, indeed, chaos would be the operative word. Hence, to assume that another Galaxy is causing gravity upon our own Galaxy to force it to disperse is questionable. If an Astronaut departs his vehicle for a Space Walk, why does he not fall to earth or immediately fly off into space. Without any assisted propulsion, he simply stays exactly where he is once having left his vehicle. A tiny shove would cause him to float away into oblivion. That would suggest that each Galaxy had its own "Big Bang" as they are all "Pin Wheels" but none can interact upon another for the same reason I have explained. Where will it end - in supposition; precisely where it began, continues to be and always will remain as an unsolved mystery in spite of great words from great teachers, in effect, they were not there so it must be supposition.

littlebang08/14/10

replied to: TyphoonSeason

Replied To: In a vacuum, there can be no gravity as we know it on earth, otherw...

Surely the reason the planets don't "fall into the sun" is called an orbit.the force generated by spinning around the sun holds us against the gravity of the sun ,they are equal so we stay in our orbit.
More about the red shift,,Olbers Paradox suggests that because the night sky is not a blanket of white , that the universe must be finite . The recent hubble time lapse photo's reveal that the red shift on distant galaxies is so shifted that they are no longer part of the visible spectrum . And they are one billion times fainter than what we could see anyway. So this proves Olber to be wrong . So , could the universe be infinite , in which case the "Universe is not expanding" just our little corner of it. If the universe is infinite , it cannot expand , it's already there!!!
There could be a reason why we hear time began with the big bang ,"In the beginning" needs there to have been a beginning,Hubble was a theist, and so was Einstein,America is one of the most religious countries in the world.Could they be using science to try and support religion???

TyphoonSeason08/14/10

replied to: littlebang

Replied To: Surely the reason the planets don't "fall into the sun" is called a...

Hi 'Littlebang' and I compliment you on your well thought out reply. The theory of gravity by rotation is a good one but begs an bag of proof to answer. Yes, absolutely, in rotation we are suspended in our position but if the galaxy (ours) is expanding, then why not our personal "corner" of it. I heartily agree that there is much out there to indicate the proof in your statement about "Science being used to support religion" because they (every name you cited) still could not get their head around the "Original Big Bang" - I cannot, can you. In a void (indeed a vacuum) for some mysterious "spark" caused all that we, 'The Hubble'; Cassini; Voyager 1 & 2, et al can and have seen would indicate there must have been someone there in the beginning (?????) to cause that spark. I am not stating that as my personal opinion but from the scientific point of view. The rabbit around looking for someway to circumvent a greater presence but all they can come up with are more theories. I personally doubt that in what time I have left on this planet, anyone will come up with a full and satisfactory answer to me about what event caused the "BEGINNING" and "HOW"?
Thank you again for your challenging thoughts.

littlebang08/14/10

replied to: TyphoonSeason

Replied To: Hi 'Littlebang' and I compliment you on your well thought out reply...

Only creationists would try and tell us there was a beginning.
Everything in life happens as a consequence of what happened before.We are parents because we had sex, We are human because monkey grew smarter.Evolution happens in every way we can imagine , I saw a doco called the evolution of god.
Things don't just appear out of nowhere!!!
There is a process at work to make everything happen.
All of the stars,and planets rotate,,one could presume then that the universe rotates, as a result of the natural forces such as orbits, The gravitational forces that grab objects that come close enough, either get trapped in an orbit,,which can be as extreme as Halleys comet or they crash into the sun.Or a planet.
Once they have entered the gravitational pull of the sun , it is unlikely they will ever generate the speed required to reach escape velocity.So they are trapped .I believe it's 2 light years away before you escape the suns gravity.
Speaking of Voyager 2 , I believe they didn't take in to consideration the extra matter in our solar system that has been found since they launched voyager, so voyager2 is probably coming home.
Science is still young and will get better over time.Like most children it will learn the hard way, by making mistakes.

TyphoonSeason08/14/10

replied to: littlebang

Replied To: Only creationists would try and tell us there was a beginning.
Eve...

With all due respects, I suggest that your posts have a proununced sting in the tail. You talk about "only creationists" as though it is a given. If you are so sure of your position, offer some proof to support it. That is a simple request and you seem to emphasise that you are a master upon the matter. I would never pretend to be a master of something that I was not 100% certain that I could claim as fact of alternatively prove. To be candid, I was not there upon the day of the big bang and unlike you I can only assume that it (or one of many other options) actually occurred. We both recognise that there is no way to prove that there was a beginning nor an end. Nostradamus gave it a good shot and luck dictated that he got some correct and others were so wrong as to not warrant discussion. I profess profoundly to any one whom may care to read my meanderings that I am a mere mortal and that (as previously indicated) as I was not there on the day it all happened, I must question the infinity previous to the 20 odd billion years time so many people refer to as though it is a given. No, there are no given's. There can only be supposition and I am not one to make a fool of myself by supporting any theory that has not got a donkeys chance in hell of ever being proven correct, feel free to call me a realist, tkx.

littlebang08/15/10

replied to: TyphoonSeason

Replied To: With all due respects, I suggest that your posts have a proununced ...

Typhoonseason,,,a realist you say,,well I'm an Atheist , could you be a bit more specific , what is your belief system . Do you believe there is a god , heaven ,life after death. Are you an agnostic, prefers to sit on the fence???
There are many ways we can prove that the BB was not the beginning of time , or "The Universe". We have examples of black holes now for us to study . We know what they are what they do , and they sound remarkably like the BB before it went bang. A whole lot of matter compressed into a very small space. It would have taken a lot of time to gather all of that matter and get it ready to go bang.
The universe is infinite,,therefore the little corner of the universe we call "The known Universe" may have started with this bang,, and may be expanding , but thats not the Universe.If the universe is infinite , it can't be expanding , it's already there!!!Asking us to imagine there was "nothing" before the bb , is about as logical as asking us to imagine god. We can use logic to prove things but only those who grasp what logic is will agree. I define logic as "The most probable" The universe is infinite because you most probably can't put a wall up to say the universe ends here!!!,Time and space are infinite,,we can go back for ever in our calculations . We just don't have a lot of physical evidence to support the logic. When I discuss infinity , I often find myself asking those challenging it to define "nothing" if there was no time and no space before the big bang , how long was that for , how big was the space that had no space.Was that the whole universe or just the "known universe" nothing is completely illogical .There is no rational way to describe "nothing" just as there is no rational way to describe god . The belief in god is irrational . And so is the idea that time and space began with the bb...

brotherunknown08/15/10

replied to: desmonde

Replied To: Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based teles...

Our universe is a 4D cross-section of a much larger universe. Our universe began as a scalar field whose points were cross-sections of external-to-our-universe high-energy pathways. At rare intervals in time-space (say every 10 million years per 10 million light year sphere), quantum tunneling results in pathways which now occupy a quantum-space volume in our universe. Each such pathway subsequently evolves into a super-cluster of galaxies.

While our universe will expand indefinitely, the Vegan Super-Cluster to which we belong will gradually collapse in on itself. The Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way will come together as part of this process. Meanwhile, other super-clusters will begin to form in what now appears to be empty space.

littlebang08/15/10

replied to: brotherunknown

Replied To: Our universe is a 4D cross-section of a much larger universe. Our u...

Brotherunknown,,an interesting take on the state of the universe . So when we collide with Andromeda , and things collapse in , will this produce a little bang???could bangs happen on a galactic scale rather than a universal one , in which case , littlebang would be more accurate.
So I'm interested in this "much larger universe" , would you be willing to say an Infinite Universe???,I can't see it being any other way myself . So if the universe is infinite we can't say the universe is expanding , because it's already there . So we would have to say the Known universe , which seems a little ego driven , why don't we just rename it ,"our bit" or something a little more real in terms of scale and perspective.